Firing Squad - One Gun Has Blanks?

[Turbo_Dog]

I just received email confirmation from the Utah Dept. of Corrections that the execution protocol and information of the blank round being placed in one of the rifles covered in the Florida and Indiana links is correct.

I’m not sure how much closer to the source we can get here.

[Tranquilis]

Ah.

I stand corrected, and should read more closely.

[bibliophage]

*Originally posted by Duderdude2 *
**bibliophage, how is a verbal insult any more offensive than the ‘rolling of eyes’ emoticon following a sarcastic statement? Hell, he didn’t even call him a dick, he merely asked why he was “acting like a dick”. Pay attention **

I don’t see Otto complaining, but it’s a fair question anyway.

Direct insults like “you are a dick” (or calling someone a “jackass”) are of course be forbidden. I don’t see a big difference between that and “You are acting like a dick.” What is a person who acts like a dick if not a dick?

Saying “Are you trying to be a dick?” would probably be acceptable (but not preferred) behavior in GQ. It leaves open the possibility that the person so addressed may not in fact be a dick. Saying “Why are you [acting like] a dick?” is a loaded question and closes all such possibilities. It is to my mind logically equivalent to saying “You are a dick; please explain why,” and that’s not acceptable.

What Otto said was “Is there some reason you’re acting like a dick?” I admit this is a borderline case, but I felt it deserved a warning.

Really I’d prefer it if people didn’t use the rolleyes smilie in GQ in reference to another person’s post, but there’s no rule against it. A nonverbal insult like that can be interpreted in any number of ways. I normally take it as insulting to the post rather than the poster, which is acceptable.

[netscape_6]

*Originally posted by ubermensch *
**In Soviet Russia, you shoot the firing squad! **

I laughed then it felt morbid to be laughing, so i chuckled and it felt a little less morbid.

[Duckster]

*Originally posted by sailor *
In China they are generally executed with a single pistol shot to the back of the head so it wouldn’t work there.

In an effort to improve cost-efficiency, Chinese provincial authorities are beginning to introduce so-called mobile execution vans. These are intended to replace the traditional method of execution by firing squad in which prisoners are taken to an execution ground and made to kneel with hands cuffed before being shot in the head. Officials in Yunnan province explained that only four people are required to carry out the execution in the mobile vans: the executioner, one member of the court, one official from the procuratorate and one forensic doctor.

Eighteen mobile executions vans, converted 24-seater buses, are being distributed to all intermediate courts and one high court in Yunnan province. The windowless execution chamber at the back contains a metal bed on which the prisoner is strapped down. Once the needle is attached by the doctor, an act which breaches international medical ethics, a police officer presses a button and an automatic syringe inserts the lethal drug into the prisoner’s vein. The execution can be watched on a video monitor next to the driver’s seat and can be recorded if required.

Source: http://www.justresponse.net/Wang_Zhang.html

[adirondack_mike]

FWIW - Arthur Empey in his recollections of WWI in “Over the Top” describes firing squad duty. Twelve soldiers were sellected and marched to the execution site. They each picked up a rifle and were read the execuction orders. They were then told that one rifle had a blank cartridge and the rest had ball cartridges. Empey purposely missed the target and saw a bullet hit so he knew that he did not have the blank cartridge. HOWEVER, this doesn’t prove that there was a blank cartridge just that he was told that there was one.

BTW Empey was a Yank who volunteered for the British Army before the US involvement. Interesting first hand account (pub 1917)